Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)/Archive 1

August 2016

SCD is a neutral and impartial humanitarian NGO with no official affiliation.... Pathetical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.118.211 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of criticism by anonymous user

At 22:11, 16 September 2016‎ user Nev1 removed the following line, due to some sources being considered not valid.

" /> Opponents have accused them of being linked to Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda and of receiving US government funding. "

References

Having checked the links, and the video in youtube, it is clear that there is a controversy about this organisation. As reported by the Huffington Post IN, they wonder if they are superheroes or propaganda:

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/kabir-taneja/syrian-superheroes-or-propaganda-pawns-netflixs-documentary/

We do not know which of the sides is right. But such controversy deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia and not removed because of non-reliability of sources (there are 2 cited by the user, plus the huffpost I found).The controversy exists.

Green beret1972 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Sep 19 2016

Neither AFPEurope nor Global Research are reliable sources. A reference to Huffington Post would be acceptable, however it does not support the statement that there are any links with Al-Nursa, or with Al-Qaeda, or any funding from the US. In fact HP is decidely supportive of the White Helmets, saying "even if one was to consider all the various narratives around the White Helmets, they seldom come off as anything but an inspiring group of men who are completely worthy of a Nobel nod." Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are they not reliable? I am new to Wikipedia, this makes no sense. Syria is a war, and there are 2 sides in a war. If you only put sources from the West, which are aligned with the opposition, there will be no way to have criticism. The criticism and controversy exists. I don't say that the criticism is correct, but that there are critic voices. Thus a Criticism section should be open.Green beret1972 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of a prominent Russian newspaper saying this NGO is dubious. I will open the Criticism section based on this:

https://sputniknews.com/politics/20150908/1026752193/ngo-rescue-civilians-western-propaganda.html#ixzz3lAx78S1D

Again, I don't know whose side is right, but it is worthy enough to be mentioned in a Criticism section. Green beret1972 (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section

A criticism section has to be created based on the following:

It is a fact there is Criticism for this NGO, and there is controversy going on. Hence this article shouldn't hide this anymore. This doesn't mean the criticism is right. It means that it exists and can be true.

LINKS. One American, one Russian, of importance:

1) Ron Paul Institute, US: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/august/27/syria-the-propaganda-ring/

2) Sputnik, Russia: https://sputniknews.com/politics/20150908/1026752193/ngo-rescue-civilians-western-propaganda.html#ixzz3lAx78S1D

3) Huffpost IN: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/kabir-taneja/syrian-superheroes-or-propaganda-pawns-netflixs-documentary/3

The last one only reports the existence of controversy, while 1 and 2 clearly say the NGO is suspect

Green beret1972 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We’re getting into the sometimes tricky area of neutrality. Wikipedia articles need to be neutral and reliably sourced. However, the fact that there are divergent views on a topic does not mean the views need to be given equal weight. To begin with, including a section devoted to criticism’ is rarely an effective way to bring balance, even when started with the best of intentions. It robs events of their context and encourages one-sided content in that particular section because of its title. Criticism should be included where it can be reliably sourced, but it should be integrated with the rest of the article. The way balance is established is to look at how reputable sources represent a topic.

We should use reliable sources to guide what goes into the article. With this in mind it is therefore important to examine whether APFEurope, Global Research, Sputnik News, and the Ron Paul Institute are reliable sources.

To begin with APFEurope, headlines on their front page read “Video shows that, while Western Europe surrenders to Islam, some nations are determined to live”, “Young Irish men tear Politically Correct ‘gender’ fantasies to pieces!”, and “Euro-Jihad Threat Grows – New ‘refugee’ flood underway through Bulgaria”. APF is a far-right group and their news coverage is decidedly not neutral as evidenced by their headlines.

Global Research incorporates articles pushing conspiracy theories. As such when writing an encyclopedia article we should be looking for better sources.

Sputnik is reporting what Vanesse Beeley says, while the Ron Paul Institute’s piece is written by Beeley herself. Beeley’s interpretation of the situation seems to be a minority one. Finally, the Huffington Post reduces any disagreement about the group to the level of YouTube comments. To be a bit reductive, a mixed reception of a Netflix documentary isn’t noteworthy. This article should reflect what the mainstream sources say. Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

These are just a few sources, and there are more online. Amnesty International, to name one example, has a criticism section and it is a much more neutral organisation than White Helmets. This NGO here is operating only in the rebel side in Syria and thus Criticism should be included. Green beret1972 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are mainstream sources they can be integrated into the article, but a criticism section would unbalance the article. Nev1 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Even more astonishing, US spokesman Mark Toner says the leader of White Helmets got the visa revoked to enter the US. This raised questions because of possible links to extremism: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-state-department-bans-leader-white-helmets-giving-group-23-million/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green beret1972 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasons the visa being declined were never established so any suggested reasons are speculation. Moreover, Tonner said "We’ve seen no action on the part of this group writ large that indicates in any way that they’re nothing but an impartial group that – like any humanitarian organization – works across lines of control and is in contact with a range of groups to facilitate their life-saving efforts". Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Green beret1972: You are correct about the jetzt.de story, it does say that opponents of SCD accuse them of being sympathisers of IS. However, criticism sections are not good practice because they are typically unbalanced. In addition, what have the responses been to these accusations? Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

More criticism

The criticism section should be expanded. In German media and news are some good articles, exposing the White Helmets http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/49/49562/1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

seconded. Half the world have seen the damming and exposing videos on these US-UK oaid charlatans. Please refrain from using Wikipedia for pure pro-US warmongering propaganda for "regime change" anywhere and everywhere they please. From Norway this loks like an attempt to pander to the most naive among the englishspeaking peoples and populations in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.235.205 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that these people are a highly controversial group, operating only in areas actively occupied by Jihadists. None of the residents interviewed after the liberation of Eastern Aleppo seem to recall seeing them anywhere or providing aid to anyone. And if their purpose is humanitarian, why did they not remain in Aleppo after the government regained control, to assist with humanitarian relief? The UN, the Red Crescent, and the Russians were providing food, water and clinics to those in need. These charlatans were nowhere to be found. Jan Oberg, a Scandinavian photojournalist was in Aleppo immediately after the fall of Islamist resistance and confirms the same: https://janoberg.exposure.co/humans-in-liberated-aleppo.

The entire page needs to be re-worked as evidence seems to conclusively prove this is nothing but a disinformation campaign to sway Western hearts towards Regime Change. 24.52.231.99 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Gee, you guys don't seem incredibly biased at all. 100.40.6.156 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The heise.de link is actually an article from 21stcenturywire, which habitually runs kooky conspiracy theories. Definitely not RS. Alsee (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't even the real Syrian Civil Defense Organization

If you go to http://www.icdo.org/en/ which is the official page of the International Civil Defense Organization, and keeps track of member nations' civil defense organizations, you will see that Syria already has a civil defense organization which officially joined the international organization way back in 12/09/1972. The ICDO seems to have a wikipedia page in the german-language section, but not in English: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Defence_Organisation

At icdo.org, if you mouse-over Syria on the map, and select "Read More", it redirects to this url: http://mod.gov.sy/index.php?node=554&cat=3251 The evidence is compelling that this is the real official civil defense force, both by the nature that it is the one recognized by the ICDO, and also that it is hosted on a syrian government website. If the white helmets are not the official civil defense force, then what exactly are they?

The fact remains that the white helmets are not the official Syrian Civil Defense Organization, and attempts to pass it off as if it is seem very very strange to me. Rawb (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The article states "SCD is not affiliated to the International Civil Defence Organisation, nor is it connected to the Syrian Civil Defence Forces which have been a member of the ICDO since 1972." Nev1 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This is advanced Propaganda

This article reads like PURE advanced "soft" power propaganda.

The organization in question is being depicted and portrayed as if they were the official Syrian Civil Defense without qualifiers. They are obviously NOT. Syria HAS a LARGE and REAL civil defense force. This page should NOT be at the top of searches for the OFFICIAL and officially RECOGNIZED Syrian Civil Defense force. The REAL Syrian civil defense force was a cosignatory to the late 1940's creation of the international organisation for civil defense forces. I'm not donating a single dollar to wikipedia until some serious adult cleans up this obscene attempt at using wikipedia for propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.235.205 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Shameless propaganda

This article is a joke.

White Helmets are a set of props, including some expensive video equipment, donated to al Qaeda purely for the purposes of making anti-Syria propaganda . Have a look at their Omran video and then tell me that it is anything more than a promotional photoshoot. One of the photographers posted on his facebook page a selfie with the same people who chopped the head of 12 year old Abdullah Issa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bougatsa42 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Worse than a joke - it's naked propaganda and not worthy of Wikipedia. With liberation of eastern Aleppo, the White Helmets have disappeared, escaping with the jihadists rather than staying to do their civil defence work. Here is a sample tweet from today that highlights what is happening. I propose that this page should be deleted. Silicondale (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Recommend Deletion of the entire article

The "White Helmets" are not who they are purported to be. This article does not describe the real Syrian Civil Defence organisation which is internationally recognised by ICDO, non-sectarian, and carries out civil defence operations across all of Syria (unlike the "White Helmets" who operate only in terrorist-held areas).

The article is not neutral and not verifiable in that it praises the "White Helmets" for actions which are documented only by the organisation itself. The existence of the organisation and the identity of its funding sources are not disputed but the nature of the organisation is not as presented, as its primary purpose appears to be pro-terrorist propaganda. With liberation of eastern Aleppo, the White Helmets have vanished and the civil defence functions there are now provided by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent organisation which is reputable and affiliated to ICRC. It has been reported by the Syrian Arab Army that "White Helmets" ambulances have been discovered being used to transport weapons for the Nusra Front terrorists. Silicondale (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claims that White Helmets are a "scam"

I removed the following text that was added approximately an hour ago:

Latest investigations have found the White Helmets to be a scam organisation, which have faked their videos to receive over $150 million in funding. In one such video, the same "Syrian" girl was rescued three times in three different locations. Not a single person in Syrian, whether "rescued" or not, have heard about the White Helmets.

Further investigations have found James Le Mesurier to have a shell account in Singapore, with balances in seven figures.

More updates will be given in due time.

I believe this information ought to be included if, and only if, it can be reliably sourced, which the contributor of these paragraphs made no attempt to do. 110.142.182.15 (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe this article is not balanced - it reads like Pro-Western propoganda

Hi,

I would like to know why you deleted my entry about Eva Bartlett's criticism of the White Helmets? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AisvBNXPdG8 http://webtv.un.org/watch/permanent-mission-of-the-syrian-arab-republic-to-the-united-nations-press-conference-9-december-2016/5241732190001#full-text She is not an unknown person as you have stated. She has contributed to well known news sources, such as Russia Today and was a reporter on the ground in Palestine. This conference is a UN Conference and is news worthy. I believe that the person moderating this page is doing so in an extremely political fashion based on other users comments. I will be reporting to Wikipedia about this and will not be donating to Wikipedia if this is the type of censorship which occurs.

• I wasn't the user who deleted it, but based on the comments it is apparent you need to justify your reasoning for inclusion in your edit summary, I see you didn't do that in your original edit. Perhaps, contact the user that reversed your edit? Don't forget to sign your posts. Fritz1543 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to "White Helmets"

Why? The organization is not real Civil Defense of Syria and it's not a member of International Civil Defense Organization. The official CD of Syria is here: [1] and it's linked from the ICDO website: [2]. This article [3] explains the issue.

Also, the organization described here is known as White Helmets, and sources refer to it almost exclusively by that name. --Emesik (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with this proposal. The "White Helemts", whatever they are, are most certainly NOT the real Syrian Civil Defence organisation and should not be presented as such. As an interesting aside, with the liberation of eastern Alkeppo in the last few days, there have been no reports from any side of White Helmets personnel either assisting civilians there or leaving the area. If they were so proud of their 'search and rescue' work, surely they would have wanted to be seen, in uniform, and working alongside the Syrian Arab Red Crescent who were actually helping the many injured and sick civilians to safety in western Aleppo. Their "ambulances" were discovered by Syrian army being used for weapons transport. This is in my view strong confirmation that they are in fact PURELY a propaganda arm of the Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists.Silicondale (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). (non-admin closure) Bradv 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Syrian Civil Defense → White Helmets – There is already an official Syrian Civil Defense organization, a member of International Civil Defense Organization since 1972. White Helmets are claiming themselves to be "Syrian Civil Defense" but that's not even supported by the sources. They are much better known under the name of White Helmets. The current title is misleading. Emesik (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems to be an improper request, since there is already something at that destination name, and the nominator has not suggested what should be done with it. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a disambiguation page only. The header "Not to be confused with..." will perfectly replace it. --Emesik (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support — Per reason stated above. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: "White Helmets" has other meanings: see disambig page White Helmets. To me in England, the main meaning of "White Helmets" is the Royal Signals Motorcycle Display Team. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Since it has been demonstrated beyond all doubt that the White Helmets are NOT the real Syrian Civil Defence they should not appear under that title. This is irrespective of the role which they actually play within terrorist-held areas - though available evidence suggests this is predominantly anti-Syrian propaganda rather than humanitarian. It is very telling that with liberation of eastern Aleppo, the White Helmets simply evaporated, leaving the Syrian Arab Red Crescent to carry out evacuation of sick and injured civilians.Silicondale (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per reasons stated above. ~dandel-rovbur (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BarrelProof and Anthony Appleyard above. There is already a disambiguation page at the destination name, and two of the listed pages are about organizations that will probably still exist long after the current Syrian Civil War ends. Please note I am only interested in preserving the existing disambiguation, my objection would end if the target of the rename is changed to a currently unused one, for example White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Kiore (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC) (Really 10:14)
  • This is a good point. I second the proposal to move this page to White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). I think this is a good compromise. ~dandel-rovbur (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I think this is the best solution. If no one gives a valid argument against such move in within next 3 days, I'll rename the page. --Emesik (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - but support White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) per above. (Even though they wore Red Helmets in their early days![4]) Rwendland (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Passing Off. Change name or remove page.

The WHITE HELMETS did not exist at the time the conflict in Syria began, and there exists already an official Syrian Civil Defence as listed on the ICDO website http://www.icdo.org/en/about-icdo/members/member-states that links to the official syrian civil defence here http://mod.gov.sy/index.php?node=554&cat=3251

The page should be called WHITE HELMETS and there should be a disclaimer "not to be confused with the official Syrian Civil Defence" with a link to the icdo member list and a link to the official syrian civil defence.

Any attempt to pass off this british creation as anything other than a tool for the purposes of spreading Anti-Syrian-Government propaganda purposes is misleading. IF this were a brand for a product, it would be removed at once, as a clear attempt at "passing off". The internationally recognised Syrian Civil Defence has been in existence since 1972, and the goodwill and work of all those brave men and women over the decades since its creation is being wiped from history by this fake page.

The title should be changed to "WHITE HELMETS" and all references to "Syrian Civil Defence" should be removed. It is wholly funded by western governments and gulf states, was created by a british mercenary in 2013, and has NO links to the syrian government or the official syrian civil defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.125.149 (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Ideally the page should be removed in its entirety, or else completely re-written to make clear the true identity and purpose of "White Helmets" as a western founded and funded propaganda organisation. Barbara McKenzie's blog includes a reference to the fact that the UK's funding of the hite Hemets is part of its NON-humanitarian aid - a recognition that the principal purpose of the White Helmets is actually the creation and dissemination of propaganda. See also https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481277/Syria_UK_Non-Humanitarian_Support_-_Public_Document.pdf Silicondale (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Another vote in support of this proposal. This is clearly some sort of sophisticated PR campaign designed to make the case for arming and supporting the Jihadists factions against Assad more palatable to the Western public. 24.52.231.99 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Wadi Barada

Is it relevant in the context of this article that the white helmets co-signed this statement asking government forces for a ceasefire during the siege of Wadi Barada? -- 77.22.215.46 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

People associated with the White Helmets/ MayDay Rescue keep deleting the quotes and links to the White House Press Conference on Raed Saleh being refused entry to the U.S.

Hi,

Can something please be done about this? Sock accounts which seem to be associated with the White Helmets/MayDay Rescue keep cropping up and deleting the following entry without any explanation:

At a White House press corps briefing on April 17th 2016, Mark C. Toner, Deputy Department Spokesperson for the United States Department of State was questioned about the reason for Raed Saleh being refused entry to the U.S. A member of the White House press corps, Matthew Lee questioned Mark C. Toner and the following exchange occurred:

Press Corps Journalist: "Mark, but can you ask for some – I mean, this just seems bizarre to me. You’re giving this guy [Raed Saleh] and his group $23 million. Yes, they do good work, they save lives, but you’ve revoked his visa for some reason and you won’t say why and it just doesn’t make any sense. Why is the U.S. taxpayer supporting a group whose leader you have banned from coming to the States?"

Mr.Toner: "Well, I mean, look, I’m always willing to try to get more information".

Matthew Lee: "Please".

Mr.Toner: "In this case, I’m a bit restricted by the fact that this is --"

Matthew Lee: "Just – well, I know, but it just --"

Mr. Toner: "I can’t talk about a specific visa".

Matthew Lee: "To the average person, I don’t think this makes any sense".

A video of this exchange can be viewed at the 5 minute 5 second mark on the U.S. Department of State's website.

Flemingi (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

People associated with White Helmets keep deleting references with no reason

Today Samsnow (another sock account) deleted the references and text which I added to the criticism again. These sock accounts do this every day (Monday to Friday) which suggests they work for an organization associated with the White Helmets. I have a good idea of which organization!

Flemingi (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Samsnow engaging in tendentious editing

Hi,

Can some of the other editors please help me do something about Samsnow? He or she has been engaging in tendentious editing, continuously deleting the criticism section. Also they created a page for Mayday Rescue so it's obviously someone who works for the company.

Thanks,

Flemingi (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism/Edits

In the interests of resolving the current dispute over this article, I'd like to address some of the issues raised here.

First: apologies for any disruption my edits has caused, as I'm a new user to Wikipedia and learning the ropes. However, accusations of vandalism are utterly unfair, as this process started when, in an act of what can actually be called vandalism, certain editors reverted an earlier version of the article on 27 January to reflect a deeply slanted and politically biased treatment of the subject. Their vandalism was so extensive that the only realistic option was to revert the entire article text to an acceptably neutral version. And so we come here.

The main problem against which I've reacted is the fact that a number of individuals with a clear anti-White Helmets bias have been systematically editing this article in a non-neutral and biased way. If any of you reacting to my edits are acting in good faith, and not as agents of a state actor, be aware that many of the themes and accusations raised both in the article and the talk page have clear derivations from the talking points of certain state media organisations with a clear anti-White Helmets bias, which--while not necessarily disproving the allegations--should make any reasonable person question their legitimacy. This has given the article a rather dramatic political slant, reflecting a position that is characteristic of Syrian government and Russian government supporters, and which stands in clear violation of wikipedia's neutrality policy (both in terms of wording and language, and by giving undue weight to what most media consumers in the English-speaking world would probably consider fringe media outlets, conspiracy theorists, and state propaganda--certainly not WP:RS). A few main issues stand out.

To write that the White Helmets are an 'anti-Assad political organisation' in the first sentence is hardly neutral, and any balanced review of available material will indicate that, political stance not withstanding, the organisation's well-documented focus on civil defence tasks is a far more relevant factor to its description. If that sort of opinion is to be included at all, it should be in the criticism section, with references to suitable sources that haven't been proven wrong elsewhere in the article.

Additionally, the version to which I've been reverting contains important historical information which is being obliterated by other users' reversions.

With regards to the criticism section, it has certainly not been deleted, but rather edited for style, clarity and fairness. On a case by case basis:

-The extended section relating, verbatim, an exchange between a reporter and State Dept spokesman was deleted because it was irrelevant, jarring, and out of place with the style of the article; focusing on a single minor incident in the four-year history of the organisation at such length, when the salient point ("Dulles Airport officials denied entry to Raed Saleh, the leader of the Syria Civil Defense. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not publicly disclose why the agency prevented Saleh from entering the country") had already been made, degraded the quality of the article.

-The extended quotation by Eva Bartlett was removed because it has been proven wrong - as a reference by Flemingi shows earlier in the section. Another reference for this is: http://www.snopes.com/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

-The section on the 19 October aid convoy bombing was removed because it was not written in a remotely neutral tone, citing as fact that "American historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter has extensively documented how senior members of the White Helmets have repeatedly peddled falsehoods to Western media outlets"; this, of course, is an extremely biased statement, and the article cited reveals, at most, discrepancies in the account of one White Helmets leader about one incident and questions casualty statistics. Furthermore, it does not acknowledge that Porter himself arguably writes with a clear anti-establishment political bias.

What the repeated edits have done is to reshuffle the criticism section in order to make structural sense. Most notably, they move the counter-criticism to a more visible place, namely the last paragraph of the section.

To add to a few earlier debates on this page:

-Title: the White Helmets have been so named, informally, by the press, the Syria Campaign and the public. Their real name, however, is Syria Civil Defence - although as has been pointed out, they are not affiliated with ICDO. In fact, the article could do with a section on why they only work in opposition areas (which explains why they are separate to the government Civil Defence organisation).

-Website: the above has led to some confusion regarding their website. The Syria Campaign's www.whitehelmets.org is not their website. The Syria Campaign is an advocacy organisation and a supporter of the White Helmets, but not formally affiliated with them. See www.syriacivildefense.org.

I don't mean to be disruptive with these edits, and they are certainly not vandalism; I very much hope that any dispute can be resolved by a comprehensive review of available evidence in a spirit of dialogue. I am happy to contribute to a fair discussion that produces a quality, neutral article which represents is subject fairly. What none of us who are contributing to this article in good faith should tolerate is destructive editing with the intent of sabotaging this organisation's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsnow (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Samsnow, there is a problem of bias with Western sources which also concerns the readers of this article. This is particularly important regarding the United States, for instance, where press freedom has been rated poorly by Reporters Without Borders. As is well documented, the White Helmets have both a foundational and ongoing relationship with the US government.

Funny you should bring up hidden agendas too, Samsnow. It would easier to reassure us that you yourself are not a government agent if you were registered properly as Wikipedia user, like most of the other people doing major edits on a regular basis.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Samsnow (Mayday Rescue)

Hi Samsnow,

Thanks for your detailed response regarding your thought process. First, I don't accept your apology. Secondly, I don't buy your protestations of innocence about deleting the extensively-documented criticisms of the White Helmets from around the internet. You claim that you had to revert to a previous version of the article which contained none of the publicly available and valid criticisms of the White Helmets. This strikes me as being extremely dishonest. There is a middle ground here which we can take, but you preferred to delete all the critical links with the flimsiest of reasons provided. I, and other bonafide Wikipedia users, left some of your obvious attempts to soften the criticism section in places, but I refuse to allow you and the other people who work at Mayday Rescue (which you interestingly created the Wikipedia entry for - it's almost like you work for them or something?!) to completely remove dissenting views about the organization.

Your arguments attempting to discredit the independent media outlets cited in this article (that are actually doing their job of investigative journalism and cutting through the Western mass media propaganda) is absolutely laughable. Your ridiculous logic seems to be that readers should only read and pay attention to the incestuous, corporate-owned media conglomates that you find acceptable. I'm sure any person who has even given a cursory glance to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' might be inclined to take your advice with a grain of salt. The White Helmets are clearly an anti-Assad organization. If you examine the White Helmets Twitter account it is full of anti-Assad commentary which attempts to demonize the democratically elected President of Syria. Here is just one example, although there are many: https://twitter.com/syriacivildef/status/565124379420684288

Regarding your complete deletion of the quote section where Matthew Lee questioned Mark C. Toner of the U.S. State Department you claim "it was deleted because it was irrelevant, jarring, and out of place with the style of the article". I must disagree. It is relevant. It is a perfectly legitimate critical questioning of the Obama administration that funded the White Helmets with U.S. tax payers' money yet was an administration that din't allow the leader of the White Helmets into the U.S. I know that you and your manager at Mayday Rescue would prefer to see this quote swept under the rug, but I for one believe that it is an important, enlightening and relevant criticism of the major funders of the WH. Again it strikes me as dishonest that you wouldn't even countenance having an abbreviated version of Matt Lee's line of questioning with a link to the transcript of the White House Press conference and a link to the video of the exchange on the State Department's website. Those links can be found here if any other Wikipedia editors need them:

https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/04/256667.htm

https://video.state.gov/detail/videos/category/video/4866119970001/?autoStart=true

You claim that the extended quote from Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett, who has reported on the ground from Alleppo on four separate occasions, has been proven wrong. And your source for this assertion is the California-based company Snopes.com which has been accused of taking funding from well-known neo-liberal, globalist George Soros. Yet you don't believe that Snopes could possibly be biased towards the U.S. or have an agenda and knows more about Syria on the ground than Eva Bartlett (despite being thousands of miles away from the action). Ms Bartlett's assertion that no one in Alleppo had seen or received assistance from the White Helmets has also been extensively documented by the people living there and some independent journalists such as Sweden's Jan Oberg:

https://janoberg.exposure.co/humans-in-liberated-aleppo

Ms. Bartlett's assertion that sources on the ground in Syria which are providing information to Western media are heavily compromised and shouldn't be trusted, also makes sense when you discover that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is essentially just one Syrian man living in the U.K., and when we know that the White Helmets are funded by Western governments and organizations regularly involved in regime change.

http://webtv.un.org/watch/permanent-mission-of-the-syrian-arab-republic-to-the-united-nations-press-conference-9-december-2016/5241732190001#full-text

Gareth Porter's reporting also clearly demonstrates that the White Helmets are deliberately lying to western media on multiple occasions. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-syrian-white-helmets-played-western-media Your excuse that the reference to Gareth Porter's article should be deleted because he is "anti-establishment" is also hilarious. Gareth Porter, who won the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (along with Robert Fisk and Jeremy Harding) and who specializes in debunking state propaganda isn't establishment enough for Samsmow! Absolutely hysterical!

Gareth's article clearly proves that a key member of the White Helmets senior staff, Ammar Al-Selmo, misled the Washington Post and Time magazine about his whereabouts and the time of the attack with regard to the Syrian Red Crescent truck bombing. First the guy says he was a few kilometres away, then he says he was right next to the exploding truck. Seems a bit strange. If a truck blew up next to me, I'd be pretty certain about where I was at the time. Ammar Al-Selmo also said that he could see a Russian helicopter dropping barrel bombs clearly despite it being pitch black at 7:30pm at night at the time, in a part of Syria that has regular electricity outages. Then he changes his story and says it was 6:00pm. So first he doesn't know where he was when it happened and he also doesn't what time it was or whether it was dark or not. The guys is full of BS. Gareth Porter documents about 4 or 5 other cases of the White Helmets clearly lying in relation to casualties caused by barrel bombs (when it's clearly obvious the blasts were caused by hell cannons - which Jabat al-Nusra (good friends and accomplices of the White Helmets) regularly use. In relation to the reference to The Syria Campaign, that's section is meant to illuminate the White Helmets close involvement with organzations involved in regime change, as Avaaz has been with Libya and other countries.

Anyways Samsnow, I hope you don't take any of this too personally. I'm just a concerned Wikipedia user that wants the readers of this fine website to have access to a decently written criticism section, despite your best efforts to defang it of any valid criticism of the White Helmets and replace it whatever piece of propaganda MayDay Rescue's PR department gave to you to regurgitate. Take it easy and I hope your manager doesn't give you too much of an earful on Monday after the Oscars.

Is Mise Le Meas, Flemingi (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Samsnow (Mayday Rescue)

Hi Samsnow, First, I don't accept your apology. Secondly, I don't buy your protestations of innocence about deleting the extensively-documented criticisms of the White Helmets from around the internet. You claim that you had to revert to a previous version of the article which contained none of the publicly available and valid criticisms of the White Helmets. This strikes me as being extremely dishonest. There is a middle ground here which we can take, but you prefered to delete all the critical links with the flimsiest of reasons provided. I and other bonefide Wikipedia users left some of your obvious attempts to soften the criticism section in places, but I refuse to allow you and the other people who work at MayDay Rescue (which you interestingly created the Wikipedia entry for - it's almost like you work for them or something?!) to completely remove dissenting views about the organization. Your arguments attempting to discredit the independent media outlets cited in this article (that are actually doing their job of investigative journalism and cutting through the Western mass media propoganda) is absolutely laughable. Your ridiculous logic seems to be that readers should only read and pay attention to the incestuous, corporate-owned media conglomates that you find acceptable. I'm sure any person who has even given a cursory glance to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' might be inclined to take your advice with a grain of salt. The White Helmets are clearly an anti-Assad organization. If you examine the White Helmets Twitter account it is full of anti-Assad commentary which attempts to demonize the democratically elected President of Syria. Here is just one example, although there are many: https://twitter.com/syriacivildef/status/565124379420684288 Regarding your complete deletion of the quote section where Matthew Lee questioned Mark C. Toner of the U.S. State Department you claim "it was deleted because it was irrelevant, jarring, and out of place with the style of the article". I must disagree. It is relevant. It is a perfectly legitimate critical questioning of the Obama administration that funded the White Helmets with U.S. tax payers' money yet was an administration that din't allow the leader of the White Helmets into the U.S. I know that you and your manager at MayDay Rescue would prefer to see this quote swept under the rug, but I for one believe that it is an important, enlightening and relevant criticism of the major funders of the WH. Again it strikes me as dishonest that you wouldn't even countenance having an abbreviated version of Matt Lee's line of questioning with a link to the transcript of the White House Press conference and a link to the video of the exchange on the State Department's website. Those links can be found here if any other Wikipedia editors need them: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/04/256667.htm https://video.state.gov/detail/videos/category/video/4866119970001/?autoStart=true You claim that the extended quote from Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett, who has been reported on the ground from Alleppo on four seperate occasions, has been proven wrong. And your source for this assertion is the California-based company Snopes.com which has been accused of taking funding from well-known neo-liberal, globalist George Soros. Yet you don't believe that Snopes could possibly be biased towards the U.S. or have an agenda and knows more about Syria on the ground than Eva Bartlett (despite being thousands of miles away from the action). Ms Bartlett's assertion that no one in Alleppo had seen or received assistance from the White Helmets has also been extensively documented by the people living there and some independent journalists such as Sweden's Jan Oberg: https://janoberg.exposure.co/humans-in-liberated-aleppo Ms. Bartlett's assertion that sources on the ground in Syria which are providing information to Western media are heavily compromised and shouldn't be trusted, also makes sense when you discover that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is essentially just one Syrian man living in the U.K., and when we know that the White Helmets are funded by Western governments and organizations regularly involved in regime change. Gareth Porter's reporting also clearly demonstrates that the White Helmets are deliberately lying to western media on multiple occasions. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-syrian-white-helmets-played-western-media Your excuse that the reference to Gareth Porter's article should be deleted because he is "anti-establishment" is also hilarious. Gareth Porter, who won the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (along with Robert Fisk and Jeremy Harding) and who specializes in debunking state propoganda isn't establishment enough for Samsmow! Absolutely hysterical! Gareth's article clearly proves that a key member of the White Helmets senior staff, Ammar Al-Selmo, misled the Washington Post and Time magazine about his wherabouts and the time of the attack with regard to the Syrian Red Crescent truck bombing. First the guy says he was a few kilometres away, then he says he was right next to the exploding truck. Seems a bit strange. If a truck blew up next to me, I'd be pretty certain about where I was at the time. Ammar Al-Selmo also said that he could see a Russian helicopter dropping barrel bombs clearly despite it being pitch black at 7:30pm at night at the time, in a part of Syria that has regular electricity outages. Then he changes his story and says it was 6:00pm. So first he doesn't know where he was when it happened and he also doesn't what time it was or whether it was dark or not. The guys is full of BS. Gareth Porter documents about 4 or 5 other cases of the White Helmets clearly lying in relation to casualties caused by barrel bombs (when it's clearly obvious the blasts were caused by hell cannons - which Jabat al-Nusra (good friends and accomplices of the White Helmets) regularly use. In relation to the reference to The Syria Campaign, that's section is meant to illuminate the White Helmets close involvement with organzations involved in regime change, as Avaaz has been with Libya and other countries. Anyways Samsnow, I hope you don't take any of this too personally. I'm just a concerned Wikipedia user that wants the readers of this fine website to have access to a decently written criticsm section, despite your best efforts to defang it of any valid criticism of the White Helmets and replace it whatever piece of propoganda MayDay Rescue's PR department gave to you to regurgitate. Take it easy and I hope your manager doesn't give you too much of an earful on Monday after the Oscars. Is Mise Le Meas,

Flemingi (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

this is not about your personal opinion garnered from your own Original Research (a word of advice mo chara: you need to learn to be able to evaluate the quality of your sources.... Eva Bartlett, Max Blumenthal, RT, etc.... these just won't do). It's about reflecting what high quality sources say. I agree with you - as someone who has lived in and is very familiar with the region's culture and politics - it blatantly obvious that the White Helmets are anti-Assad. And that SHOULD be reflected in this article. But you have to craft a balanced, well sourced version of this assertion before it can be included. And please leave out the conspiracy theories that they are allies with Al Qaeda! :-) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett not a credible source

I'm planning to remove the statements by Eva Bartlett. The primary source supporting her appears to be RT, which is widely accepted to have at least a partial propaganda mission. Channel 4 and Snopes both debunk her specific claims. If there were a conspiracy theories section to this article, her claims could be moved there or to a separate article about conspiracy theories surrounding the Syrian conflict.—2601:141:1:49D0:BCF6:2DEB:5A8D:25D8 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley were described by Fares Shehabi the Assadist MP for Aleppo in a tweet as 'our lady warriors'. The full tweet says: 'We call them in Aleppo, our lady warriors Vanessa & Eva. Thank u from the heart of every Syrian'. This shows that she is regarded by the regime as a valued fighter for their cause. She cannot be regarded as an independent, reliable or credible source. https://twitter.com/ShehabiFares/status/817849574694023169 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonipod (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

-With all my respect I consider that the comments of Eva Bartlett should be maintained, even if they can have a note indicating concerns. The main reason is that she is one of the few western journalists presents on the ground. Most of the "information" produced by western outlets are generated, when we are lucky, from Lebanon, never directly. Certainly you can have your have your concerns about non-MSM outlets like Sputnik or RT, but the same concerns can be directed against Reuters, WaPo or CNN. Channel 4 has produced recently reports of certain dubious credibility but to use Snopes to "debunk" Eva Bartlett goes beyond acceptance: beyond being a Soros' owned firm (which clearly places them in a extremely grey area) their quality and independence is certainly dubious. A simple visit to they main pagina clearly indicates a sort of tabloid-debunking farce. Even further, they clearly follow certain policies without any journalistic investigation, giving category of facts to unproved statements. Example: "The strikes came a day after Syria launched chemical attacks that killed dozens of civilians in the province of Idlib. It was the latest in an ongoing civil war that has killed thousands and displaced millions in the worst refugee crisis in decades" (http://www.snopes.com/2017/04/06/us-missile-strikes-syria/). 1.-It has not been proved that Syria launched any chemical attack, 2.-That the supposed attack killed "dozens of civilians", 3.-Connect those opinions to a generic fact directed to increase the value of their unproved comments expecting the irrational acceptance of the initial facts 4.-As result not only pretends to present as facts non-proved situations but also to blame the current Syrian Government of the general killing and refugee crisis in the worst postruth fashion. I just present the facts on the origin and concerns of the sources trying to use logic and common sense. NB Assad is not my cup of tea. He probably is a real crook, but at least does not fake news as the White Helmets presenting themselves as salvatorem patriae while raising false flags and abusing the goodwill of all of us — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiseia (talk • contribs) 08:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A piece by Olivia Solon in today's Guardian also questions the veracity of the work of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley concerning the White Helmets. (Solon, Olivia (18 December 2017). "How Syria's White Helmets became victims of an online propaganda machine". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 December 2017.) Philip Cross (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph on the relationships of The Syria Campaign

I removed this paragraph because it is about The Syria Campaign, not the White Helmets. The references all refer to TSC. The only connection the paragraph makes between the two organisations is the unreferenced clause "The White Helmets have their website run by a group called The Syria Campaign", which is not true - as shown earlier on this talk page, where it is pointed out that their website is not www.whitehelmets.org, but www.syriacivildefence.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnBattuta2000 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Black propaganda

Some editors are attempting to insert into the Controversies section fake accusations about the links between the White Helmets and Al Qaeda that are debunked at the start of the same section. This attribute the claims to either sites of dubious quality (i.e. "The Washington Standard") or known Assad supporters (i.e. [[Tim Anderson (political economist)Tim Anderson]. In particular they rely on claims supposedly make by a Swedish organization, which has in fact thoroughly refuted making such claims in the first place. Editors would do well to check the veracity of such sources and claim, and should ideally discuss the matter here before adding such contentious material in future. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The dubious links you show verify the careful wording I used. They are not refuting the bogus white helmut medical actions. Thank you. An editor would do well to recheck sources. SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to challenge SBS as an RS?

Dr Tim Anderson from the University of Sydney Australia claims the White Helmets are another front group for Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Theres nothing wrong with the RS. As for bias. Take Trump, hes anti Assad are you going to cull him from all Syrian articles? SaintAviator lets talk 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do anything. Anyway, this is just a report on a story by RT News. It's a tertiary source on another source. Not reliable at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I always am amused you profess to not understand something as simple as an analogy when it does not suit you. No one is fooled Marek. You know what I mean. Bias is OK if it supports your POV. Same for refs. You dont like them if they oppose your POV. I dont find your arguments credible. Its like youre still combative most of the time like that incident in the past. Your big mistake was keeping your old name after that debacle years ago, but Im grateful you did. SaintAviator lets talk 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable. End of story. I have no idea what you are rambling about Trump or Assad or whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not RS, POV

"The Washington Standard" is not a reliable source by a long shot. "The Indicter" (or whatever it is) is at best a self published source, also not reliable. Arab News isn't much better. The SBS is a rehash of a story from... RT news. So this is straight up shit sourcing for a highly inflammatory and POV claim. No way this goes in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You just dont like the points they make thats your real issue. SaintAviator lets talk 21:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about "their points". They are simply non reliable junk. And you know this. So stop edit warring, including breaking 1RR, to put this crap in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversies v. Criticism

I suggest that the Controversies section be renamed Criticism to allow broader scope for reporting from notable sources. I also suggest the article is deeply inbalanced and needs reliable sources such as this to ensure it does not give WP:UNDUE weight to anti-Assadist forces:

Max Blumenthal has published a two-part report that has described the White Helmets are "biased actors". The report alleges "The White Helmets' leadership is driven by a pro-interventionist agenda conceived by the Western governments and public relations groups that back them" and criticized the group for "acceptance of funds from a US federal agency, which he alleged had promoted political subversion in Cuba and Venezuela in the past."

Opinions and comments to build WP:CONSENSUS for the re-inclusion of this and further material would be gratefully appreciated. Guru Noel (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Socks dont help GuruNoel, though I can see the problems which prompt such a course of action, [5] but socks are counterproductive. SaintAviator lets talk 23:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the "controversies" are wider. The incident with denied entry to Raed Saleh is not a "criticism" of the organization by any account. It is a controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note I've blocked Guru Noel for socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo:, check Wayoflights too, that one is way obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I did, it was  Unrelated to Guru Noel.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that the 'Controversies' section should be changed to 'Criticism' as the article is currently completely one-sided/biased in singing the praises of the White Helmets. This decision should be put to a vote. Also an earlier version of this article included a reference to an article by the award-winning, American journalist Gareth Porter which seems to have been removed by someone without any reason being provided. I have included the quote below for posterity:

"The American historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter has extensively documented how senior members of the White Helmets have repeatedly given contradicting accounts to Western media outlets including Time Magazine and The Washington Post. Porter documented how the head of the White Helmets organization in Aleppo, Ammar Al-Selmo, gave contradictory, first-hand accounts to different media organizations about his whereabouts and the time of an attack, when he claimed to have witnessed the bombing of a Syrian Red Crescent truck on September 19, 2016.

Porter states that "Selmo’s version of the story turned out to be riddled with falsehoods; however, many journalists approached it without an ounce of skepticism, and have continued to rely on him for information on the ongoing battles in and around Aleppo...The first detail on which Selmo’s testimony revealed itself as dishonest is his claim about where he was located at the moment the attack began. Selmo told Time Magazine the day after the attack that he was a kilometer or more away from the warehouse where the aid convoy trucks were parked at that point—presumably at the local White Helmet center in Urm al-Kubra. But Selmo changed his story in an interview with the Washington Post published September 24, stating he was “making tea in a building across the street” at that moment". www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-syrian-white-helmets-played-western-media

Flemingi (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

How interesting, confirms my suspicions. SaintAviator 23:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply, alternet is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How interesting SaintAviator 05:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Let us know if you ever manage to find any reliable sources for this sort of nonsense, because until then we won't be including it. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nick Cooper and Marek: it is completely farcical that you are claiming Gareth Porter isn't a legitimate journalist. He has been a respected journalist going back to his coverage of the Vietnam War and is the Winner of the Martha Gelhorn Prize for Journalism. If he is not a legitimate source, why does the World's foremost public intellectual, Noam Chomsky, continuously cite the work of Gareth Porter in his books? Can you give a reasonable explanation laying out your argument why AlterNet is not a reliable source, besides you just not liking it, I mean? Regards. Flemingi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumably because it suits CHomsky's confirmation bias. The point is that Moscow/Damascus line being pushed by certain editors - i.e. questioning the legitimacy of this organisation, claiming it is linked to IS, etc. - has been repeatedly disproved. If someone like Porter has fallen for it, it doesn't make it any less nonsense. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at talk pages discussing whether Alternet is WP:RS and it seems there certainly isn't a consensus that it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Funding from Western governments in the lead

I've restored bit about funding back into the lead. Remember, the WP:LEAD should provide a concise overview of the article. We got a lot of material on where the White Helmets receives its funding. In fact, there's an entire section on that. That needs to be summed up in the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And the funding issue doesn't have crap to do with "overview of the article". It's just a POV attempt to poison the well. If anything that section should be cut down.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"It's just a POV attempt to poison the well."? See WP:BADFAITH. We're following basic WP:LEAD suggestions here. We've devoted entire sections to their funding in the article. So yes, I do believe it should be in the lead because the lead should provide an overview of the article. If you continue to differ, we'd have to open up an RFC and get more outside opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this is a straight up attempt to poison the well. If anything most of that section is undue. Please explain why the source of funding - which you are misrepresenting btw - is so important as to be in the lede? Also, why not write "is funded by sources in developed countries which are not Russia" which would be equally accurate than this "western" business. The word "western" does not appear in your source actually, which is a WP:PRIMARY source anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the summary is simply incorrect. Japan International Cooperation Agency is hardly anything "Western". My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind if it goes in an think it's appropriate as per Étienne Dolet. I'd like to see more stuff about the federal agency that funded all that shady stuff in Cuba and Venezuala connected as well somewhere. Ian Adams (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm, why should we try to censor this fact from the lead though? It's not like they're receiving funding from evil entities or anything. The RSs we use on this project of ours have always portrayed the West as the good guys in this fight. With that said, we shouldn't be ashamed to say, or provide heightened exposure, to the fact that this organization largely receives funding from the US government. Certainly, the White Helmets isn't ashamed of this either, after all, they've boastfully placed that information on their official website. As for concerns of OR, I hear you. We can use this WaPo source that says: "The White Helmets receive funding from U.S. and European governments, operating on a budget of about $26 million." We can change the wording from "Western governments" to simply "The White Helmets receives funding mainly from the United States and European governments." And please don't tell me this isn't important enough to be in the lead. The White Helmets Wouldn't even exist without this funding. After all, the United States provided $23 million dollars to this organization. With a budget of $26 million, that's a pretty substantial amount. Could we all agree? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not "censoring", it's removing more POV UNDUE bullshit. In light of your previous comments about "western propaganda" and other such nuggests, it's pretty transparent. Anyway, the funding doesn't really matter. There's absolutely nothing peculiar about it. They receive funding from sources that usually fund NGOs and such. This is a blatant attempt at poisoning the well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"the funding doesn't really matter"... please, Volunteer Marek, on what planet do you live? Wakari07 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Questionable source

This edit refers to a "confession" by an alleged terrorist based on reference to Syrian Arab News Agency. This is hardly a reliable source and hardly a notable claim to be included here. In addition, this edit. There is no need to tell every time: "terror groups outlawed in Russia". Yes, I know, this is required to be mentioned in Russian media, but WP is not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

SANA is absolutely not a reliable source and nothing from them should be used. In the unlikely case that the video is what it claims to be (an interview by a regime operative with a captured opposition fighter) then it is extremely unethical to link to it.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

SANA is a perfectly reliable source for the voice of the Syrian Arab Republic. A public confession by one of the members of the group that they are terrorists and involved in terrorist activities is extremely notable. This sort of censorship has no place on American Wikipedia. If you don't like it, I suggest you move to Turkey. Apparently they have a lot of work for censors there. I have tagged the article for neutrality and only using partisan sources until this is resolved. Ian Adams (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't realised this is "American Wikipedia"... But anyway: SANA is a reliable source for the views of the SAR, yes. SANA is an arm of the SAR, of the Assad regime. The SANA piece purports to be an interview with a captured fighter, not a report on the views of the SAR. If it is what it purports to be, this is a video of a captured fighter being interviewed by an arm of the state after another arm have captured him and elicited a "confession" from him. Given huge amounts of evidence of torture by said state, it would be highly unethical to link to that. However, it is at least equally likely he is not a captured fighter but that this is entirely staged, as SANA is not known for their journalistic integrity. Those are two good reasons it is absolutely ridiculous to include it in an encyclopedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree. As about "American Wikipedia", this should be explained better. I am sick and tired listening this phrase ("terror group outlawed in Russia") on Russian TV and news repeated every time when someone mentioned any organization on the Russian terrorist list. Telling this every time is required by Russian law. Some news outlets were closed because someone forget to tell "terror group outlawed in Russia" while giving an interview or whatever. And now I see someone including very same thing in WP... My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Walid Hendi didn't confess to being a "fighter" he is a White Helmet and a terrorist! Everything they do is likely staged and everyone knows it. It is absolutely the view of the SAR that White Helmets are a Turkish terrorist group. It's ridiculous to have such an encyclopedia article entirely devoted to praising terrorism. Everything you just said is far more applicable to Turkey, where this group is based, than Syria. By that rationale, almost all the sources in this article are unethical and should be deleted. Ian Adams (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see if any other editors agree with you. The only evidence he is a White Helmet is this "confession". It is not surprising the SANA article does not name the shadowy "Turkish TV station" mentioned in the article, or give any details about the incident supposedly staged. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutraility

A new Wikipedia editor, Ian Adams, has added "partisan" and "POV" tags to this article, for reasons he's given in the previous section of the talk page: "SANA is a perfectly reliable source for the voice of the Syrian Arab Republic... [Removing a reference to it is a] sort of censorship [that] has no place on American Wikipedia... Everything [the White Helmets] do is likely staged and everyone knows it... It's ridiculous to have such an encyclopedia article entirely devoted to praising terrorism. Everything you just said is far more applicable to Turkey, where this group is based, than Syria. By that rationale, almost all the sources in this article are unethical and should be deleted." Does this need to be debated, or can the tags be deleted? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This is not a justifiable inclusion. In addition, I removed "terror groups outlawed in Russia". This is not Russian media. We have wikilinks to pages about these groups, whatever they are. 20:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be right. This page seems to be Turkish media where the censors don't even have to sign their comments. Put those neutrality tags back right now. You are being blatantly partisan. Ian Adams (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's banned in Turkey. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)